>language has imperative loops but doesn't have for-loops
ok
>>55101459
thanks for the tweet m8. Some of your 12 followers totally agree with you. One has even retweeted it!
>>55101459
>New edition MTG
>>55101459
>language has "for loops" where you don't explicitly manage the test and index
>language doesn't have imperative loops at all
>>55101459
>language has loops instead of TCO and hygienic macros
>>55101459
What language is that?
>>55101459
>language doesn't have tuples and functions can't return multiple values
>language doesn't have even the most rudimentary pattern matching
>>55103639
Ruby and Python
>>55104111
But that's wrong:# Ruby
for x in (0..100)
puts x
end
0.upto(100) do | i |
sum += some_array[i]
end
[/coder]
It's just an extremely ugly way of iterating.
Think about what an iteration does:
Are you just reapeating something 100 times? Or do you need each element of a collection?
Then why using an artificial variable for it?
>>55104877
Well, fug.
Let's try it again:
[code}
# Ruby
for x in (0..100)
puts x
end
0.upto(100) do | i |
sum += some_array[i]
end
[/code]
It's just an extremely ugly way of iterating.
Think about what an iteration does:
Are you just reapeating something 100 times? Or do you need each element of a collection?
Then why using an artificial variable for it?
>>55104979
Kill me please..
>>55104877
>>55104979
>>55104985
made me chuckle
